Summary
The Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board affirmed and remanded an interlocutory order declining to exclude a physician’s Standard Form Medical Report (Form C-32). The Board held that the alleged inconsistencies between the physician’s deposition testimony and Form C-32 concerned the evidence’s weight rather than its admissibility, and that the employer had not timely followed the statutory objection procedure.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike Dr. Jones's Form C-32 medical report before trial under the cancellation rule.
- Whether alleged inconsistencies between a physician's deposition testimony and a Form C-32 rendered the report inadmissible rather than affecting the weight of the evidence.
- Whether the employer's failure to follow the statutory ten-day objection and deposition procedure barred its pretrial challenge to the Form C-32.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to strike the Form C-32 before trial because the employer did not establish an unequivocal and irreconcilable conflict in the physician's statements at the interlocutory stage.
- Any alleged inconsistencies between Dr. Jones's deposition testimony and the Form C-32 affect the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.
- The employer's challenge was procedurally deficient because it did not file the objection required by Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-235(c)(2) within ten days of receiving notice of the intended use of the Form C-32 and did not timely depose the physician under that procedure.
Key quotations
“A trial court’s evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” (at 1)
“For the cancellation rule to apply, a witness must give conflicting or contradictory statements on material issues that are susceptible to only one interpretation.” (at 3)
“We further conclude that the alleged inconsistencies between Dr. Jones’s deposition testimony and any statements in the Form C-32 go to the weight, not the admissibility, of this evidence.” (at 4)
Factual background
Bonnie Hendry deposed medical expert Dr. Christopher Jones on February 25, 2025. Dr. Jones testified that his treatment was limited to Hendry's hip and pelvic complaints, acknowledged overlap with lumbar spine disease, could not state with medical certainty what caused her hip labral tear, and said a gluteus minimus tear could result from acute injury or repetitive strain. On February 23, 2026, Hendry noticed her intent to use a Form C-32 completed by Dr. Jones at trial. The employer contended that the Form C-32 contradicted the deposition testimony and sought to exclude it under the cancellation rule.
Procedural history
The employee noticed an intent to use a Form C-32 medical report from Dr. Christopher Jones in lieu of his deposition. Rather than filing the statutory objection within ten days and deposing the physician, the employer filed a motion in limine to strike the report or obtain a continuance, arguing that the report contradicted the physician's prior deposition testimony. The trial court denied the motion, and the employer brought an interlocutory appeal.
Remand instructions
The case is remanded to the Court of Workers' Compensation Claims for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Costs on appeal are taxed to the employer.